Get site setting

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: it names the underlying RemoteControl method and states that authentication uses the configured service account with no session key, which prevents an agent from passing one. It does not describe error behavior for unknown settings.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, followed by backend method mapping and auth constraint. Every sentence carries information, though the RemoteControl method name is marginally more useful for debugging than for tool selection.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover safety. The main gap is discovery: an agent cannot tell how to learn valid setting_name values, and the sibling limesurvey_get_available_site_settings that would answer this is never referenced.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the response_format enum tradeoff, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about setting_name semantics — notably it does not tell the agent where valid names come from.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Read one global LimeSurvey setting' — with the word 'one' implicitly distinguishing it from the sibling limesurvey_get_available_site_settings. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling that enumerates valid settings, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing explains the relationship to limesurvey_get_available_site_settings (which presumably supplies valid setting names) or when this tool should be preferred over reading settings another way. The only instruction concerns credentials, not tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.